Remember me
▼ Content

Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show


Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show13-06-2018 20:40
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
13-06-2018 21:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.


The Guardian is full of BS, like usual.


The Parrot Killer
13-06-2018 22:16
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

Interesting. Three years ago, NASA said that Antarctica was gaining ice faster than it was losing it. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Also if as the article states that there is an additional 0.4 mm/year of sea level rise due to more melting ice, why isn't it showing up in the graphs? The station in Antarctica shows a 1.38 mm/year rise for the last 60 years with no acceleration. An additional 0.4 mm/year should have increased it to 1.78 mm/year, but it didn't. No other tidal gauges on the planet show that type of increase.

I would tend to be skeptical of this article.
14-06-2018 00:15
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Yes I remember that article - your links broken btw ... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

"...But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."

I don't see that much of a conflict, if any.
Maybe they took the NASA study into account making their projections.
Plus this is hardly unexpected, Arctic's been in the news all the time past few years but we all know Antarctica's next, we're going to start hearing more about what's going on there, Arctic's finished.

Whatever happened to that massive ice berg peeled off, Larsen C or something?
That disappeared from the news I thought it would get its own Twitter its probably still out there wandering around.

Where do you get mm global sea level rise data from, the figures, per area?
I mean I could look it would be tedious.

This study was published in Nature magazine.
Edited on 14-06-2018 00:16
14-06-2018 00:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Jeffvw wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

Interesting. Three years ago, NASA said that Antarctica was gaining ice faster than it was losing it. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Also if as the article states that there is an additional 0.4 mm/year of sea level rise due to more melting ice, why isn't it showing up in the graphs? The station in Antarctica shows a 1.38 mm/year rise for the last 60 years with no acceleration. An additional 0.4 mm/year should have increased it to 1.78 mm/year, but it didn't. No other tidal gauges on the planet show that type of increase.

I would tend to be skeptical of this article.



...One thing they usually mention about Antarctica is that it's warming/cooling is because of changing wind patterns because of the ozone hole.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-07-antarctic-peninsula.html
14-06-2018 02:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

Interesting. Three years ago, NASA said that Antarctica was gaining ice faster than it was losing it. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Also if as the article states that there is an additional 0.4 mm/year of sea level rise due to more melting ice, why isn't it showing up in the graphs? The station in Antarctica shows a 1.38 mm/year rise for the last 60 years with no acceleration. An additional 0.4 mm/year should have increased it to 1.78 mm/year, but it didn't. No other tidal gauges on the planet show that type of increase.

I would tend to be skeptical of this article.



...One thing they usually mention about Antarctica is that it's warming/cooling is because of changing wind patterns because of the ozone hole.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-07-antarctic-peninsula.html


The hole doesn't cause wind patterns to change. It's quite the opposite. The hole grows or shrinks depending on the wind patterns and the season.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2018 04:28
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Yes I remember that article.
14-06-2018 04:46
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
How much?
14-06-2018 06:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
monckton wrote:
How much?


https://phys.org/news/2013-10-ozone-hole-responsible-southern-africa.html

https://www.livescience.com/38765-ozone-hole-global-warming.html
14-06-2018 12:44
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
See I'd call this a Red Herring if that didn't sound like a climate related end times biblical prediction ...

"How much the ozone hole may be warming the planet is unknown, but Grise and his colleagues estimate an increase of less than 0.09 watts per square foot (1 watt per square meter) of energy could be reaching the ground. This type of warming is still a much smaller effect than the global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."
Edited on 14-06-2018 12:45
14-06-2018 18:08
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice in the past 25 years, and that ice loss has accelerated rapidly over the last five years.

In a new study, the most comprehensive to date of the continent's icy status, an international group of 84 researchers analyzed data from multiple satellite surveys, from 1992 to 2017.

They discovered that Antarctica is currently losing ice about three times faster than it did until 2012, climbing to a rate of more than 241 billion tons (219 billion metric tons) per year. Total ice loss during the 25-year period contributed to sea level rise of about 0.3 inches (around 8 millimeters), approximately 40 percent of which — about 0.1 inches (3 mm) — happened in the past five years.


https://www.livescience.com/62811-antarctica-3-trillion-tons-ice-lost.html?utm_source=notification
15-06-2018 02:11
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Here's a useful comment from another discussion about this article ...

Just to be exceeding clear:
Antarctica as a whole is indeed losing ice.
Many people are citing this NASA page from a few years ago by Zwally et al:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

This meta study includes that study and the first author of that study is a coauthor of this one. Compared to all of the other studies who looked at the same thing as them, their estimate is way out there and probably an outlier. There are uncertainties in science and that's why we don't come to definite conclusions based on just one group's analysis. Those of you who will only trust what NASA says, NASA also had a press release for this paper on its front page:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise
16-06-2018 01:47
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
monckton wrote:
Here's a useful comment from another discussion about this article ...

Just to be exceeding clear:
Antarctica as a whole is indeed losing ice.
Many people are citing this NASA page from a few years ago by Zwally et al:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

This meta study includes that study and the first author of that study is a coauthor of this one. Compared to all of the other studies who looked at the same thing as them, their estimate is way out there and probably an outlier. There are uncertainties in science and that's why we don't come to definite conclusions based on just one group's analysis. Those of you who will only trust what NASA says, NASA also had a press release for this paper on its front page:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenland-glacier-melt-actually-warped-earths-crust/
16-06-2018 02:41
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
James___ wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenland-glacier-melt-actually-warped-earths-crust/


There's a typo in the article, it should probably read ...

"We didn't know we would discover that phenomenon, and it proves the point that when the melt water goes down to the bottom of the ice sheet, it doesn't just refreeze," he said. "It does something to the whole system to make it move faster."

So I heard that much of the base of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets sit below sea level effectively in a bowl, and as the grounding lines recede behind the 'lip of the bowl', this will allow sea water to begin flowing directly under the ice sheets and have a similar and I would imagine increasing and permanent effect to what is described in this article. I think this is what climate scientists hesitantly refer to as a 'sudden collapse'. Ah, here you go, timely ...

Could Earth's Ice Sheets Collapse?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/climate/could-earths-ice-sheets-collapse.html


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
16-06-2018 06:20
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
monckton wrote:
...../greenland-glacier-melt-actually-warped-earths-crust/.....


Warped the crust? The linked Scientific American article didn't say much about that.

But that's third-hand stuff derived from climatewire with the original much longer journal article at Geophysical Research Letters at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073478

Probably more than you wanted to know in the original article. More than I can understand, things like Legendre polynomials. Glance through the bulk and spend some time in the "conclusions" section. Ice cap melting details can be complicated.
16-06-2018 11:26
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
They should have titled it ...

"Greenland Glacier Melt Increased Rink Glacier Ice Loss by 50%"

...and used 'Delawares' as units.
16-06-2018 13:28
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
One issue they haven't been mentioning is why finding ice over 800,000 years old is hard to do.
We find that old ice (> 1.5 Myr, 1.5 million years) likely exists in two regions: one ∼ 40 km south-west of Dome C along the ice divide to Vostok, close to a secondary dome that we name Little Dome C (LDC), and a second region named North Patch (NP) located 10–30 km north-east of Dome C, in a region where the geothermal flux is apparently relatively low.

Is there 1.5-million-year-old ice near Dome C, Antarctica? (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320816633_Is_there_15-million-year-old_ice_near_Dome_C_Antarctica [accessed Jun 16 2018].


Heat that comes up from the interior of the Earth contributes to the amount of melt on the bottom of the ice sheet

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-machine-geothermal-flux-beneath-greenland.html#jCp



...And from the USGS earthquake search engine, in the last 5 years there have been 711 earthquakes of a magnitude 4.5 or greater.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221529151934578%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B56.945%2C-75.234%5D%2C%5B84.096%2C1.406%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221529151934578%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%222013-06-09%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%222018-06-16%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A84.096%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A56.945%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A1.406%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-75.234%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A2.5%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D
Edited on 16-06-2018 13:30
16-06-2018 14:00
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well ice flows like a liquid over far less than million year time scales so I'd guess it's pot luck finding a patch that hasn't flowed into the ocean or melted in place over such a long period. People might have trouble finding California in a million years - though there might be some evidence of it in core samples.

But what troubles me, and I'm no scientist so I mainly worry using single syllables, but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?
16-06-2018 15:56
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
monckton wrote:
Well ice flows like a liquid over far less than million year time scales so I'd guess it's pot luck finding a patch that hasn't flowed into the ocean or melted in place over such a long period. People might have trouble finding California in a million years - though there might be some evidence of it in core samples.

But what troubles me, and I'm no scientist so I mainly worry using single syllables, but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?



...They pump sea water into the drydock. In Panama they pump fresh water into the canal. What this does is to hurt the local ecosystem.
..With glaciers, the ice at the bottom melts because of heat radiating from the earth. I wonder if all those earthquakes might be causing fractures under the glacier on Greenland.
..The earthquakes in the 1950's, a 10 year period of 4.5 magnitude or greater vs. the 5 year period in my previous post. This link has 35 earthquakes vs. 711 the last 5 years.;
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221529160881451%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B59.029%2C-75.938%5D%2C%5B84.023%2C2.813%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221529160881451%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%221950-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%221959-12-31%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A84.023%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A59.029%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A2.813%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-75.938%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A4.5%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D
16-06-2018 16:12
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?


Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.
16-06-2018 18:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well ice flows like a liquid over far less than million year time scales so I'd guess it's pot luck finding a patch that hasn't flowed into the ocean or melted in place over such a long period. People might have trouble finding California in a million years - though there might be some evidence of it in core samples.

But what troubles me, and I'm no scientist so I mainly worry using single syllables, but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?


...They pump sea water into the drydock.

No pump necessary. Just open the valve.
The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).
James___ wrote:
In Panama they pump fresh water into the canal.

No pump necessary. Just open the valve.
James___ wrote:
What this does is to hurt the local ecosystem.

Since when does a lake hurt the local ecosystem???
James___ wrote:
..With glaciers, the ice at the bottom melts because of heat radiating from the earth.

No, it melts because of the pressure on the ice above. Same principle as ice skates.
James___ wrote:
I wonder if all those earthquakes might be causing fractures under the glacier on Greenland.
...Holy Quote...

Nope. Ice in glaciers flows at different rates. That's all that's needed.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2018 18:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
still learning wrote:
monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?


Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.


You are correct.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2018 20:33
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?


Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.


You are correct.


You are correct.
17-06-2018 04:05
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?


Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.


You are correct.


You are correct.



...ITN,
..Why didn't you correct me ?
17-06-2018 04:28
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Probably speaks danish, fkn things up on the other side.
17-06-2018 16:54
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote: The hole doesn't cause wind patterns to change. It's quite the opposite. The hole grows or shrinks depending on the wind patterns and the season.


Because of the Earth's position in it's present Milankovitch Cycle there is no ozone layer over the Antarctic. Presenting that as something that doesn't happen a the same point in the same cycle shows that historic data isn't relevant to the True Believers.
17-06-2018 17:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).


Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.
17-06-2018 17:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The hole doesn't cause wind patterns to change. It's quite the opposite. The hole grows or shrinks depending on the wind patterns and the season.


Because of the Earth's position in it's present Milankovitch Cycle there is no ozone layer over the Antarctic. Presenting that as something that doesn't happen a the same point in the same cycle shows that historic data isn't relevant to the True Believers.


There is no ozone layer over either pole in its winter. It's dark.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2018 17:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).


Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.


No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2018 18:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).


Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.


No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.


That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.
18-06-2018 09:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).


Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.


No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.


That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.


There is plenty of lake water to run the lock system. They have to dump excess water because of it, just like any lock system.

I don't think you realize how little water the lock system demands. Of course, I know you are no sailor either.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).


Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.


No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.


That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.


There is plenty of lake water to run the lock system. They have to dump excess water because of it, just like any lock system.

I don't think you realize how little water the lock system demands. Of course, I know you are no sailor either.


Firstly, I've been a sailor since I got out of the Air Force. I've raced large sailboats out of the Golden Gate Yacht Club and the San Francisco Yacht Club to Los Angeles and to Catalina and back. I've owned three different boats ending in a Columbia 35 which was a piece of crap. I was the race director for the Aeolian Yacht Club with whom I was awarded a life membership. This is the second oldest yacht club on the bay founded in 1908.

Secondly your idea of small amounts of water and mine in the Panama Canal differ a large amount. It requires 52 million gallons of water per transit and there are 40 or more transits per day. This means that each day they use about 8 million cubic meters of water. For the uninformed the forebay of Grand Coulee Dam is only a half million cubic meters.
18-06-2018 20:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).


Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.


No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.


That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.


There is plenty of lake water to run the lock system. They have to dump excess water because of it, just like any lock system.

I don't think you realize how little water the lock system demands. Of course, I know you are no sailor either.


Firstly, I've been a sailor since I got out of the Air Force.

I don't believe you. You know very little about sailing. You've already demonstrated it.
Wake wrote:
I've raced large sailboats out of the Golden Gate Yacht Club and the San Francisco Yacht Club to Los Angeles and to Catalina and back.

More empty boasting.
Wake wrote:
I've owned three different boats ending in a Columbia 35 which was a piece of crap. I was the race director for the Aeolian Yacht Club with whom I was awarded a life membership. This is the second oldest yacht club on the bay founded in 1908.

More empty boasting.
Wake wrote:
Secondly your idea of small amounts of water and mine in the Panama Canal differ a large amount.

Apparently so.
Wake wrote:
It requires 52 million gallons of water per transit and there are 40 or more transits per day.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The locks aren't that large. They can't hold 52 million gallons of water!
One cycle of the locks require 5400 cubic meters of water! 40 cycles requires only 217000 cubic meters of water. The Chagres river discharges 10,800,000 cubic meters per day into Gatun Lake on average.
Wake wrote:
This means that each day they use about 8 million cubic meters of water.

Argument from randU. The locks don't use anywhere near that amount of water! They're not nearly large enough to use that much water!
Wake wrote:
For the uninformed the forebay of Grand Coulee Dam is only a half million cubic meters.

The Columbia River (which this dam sits on) flows through this dam at the rate of 10,194,120 cubic meters a day on average, dumbass. That's approximately TEN MILLION cubic meters EACH DAY. It's actually similar to the Chagres river average flow rate into Gatun Lake.

Like usual, you are getting your facts from idiot news sources instead of the people that build and operate these facilities.

Apparently you don't realize that Gatun Lake and Lake Maddedn are fed from the nearby rainforests.
You don't seem to understand how big these locks are either. You are horribly uninformed about every facility you've mentioned!

There is far more than enough water to operate the locks. Indeed, there is enough available to expand the lock system considerably.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future12408-10-2018 21:50
Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record1105-10-2018 20:22
Ice sat 2 launches2228-09-2018 01:17
"Why is America melting so fast?"822-05-2018 15:55
"Why Is Everything Melting So Fast??"421-05-2018 05:26
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact